Nathan Fielder's Elizabeth Holmes Doc Met with Shock and Awe at Secret Screening

Posted by Teever 11 hours ago

Comments

Comment by idontwantthis 8 hours ago

I haven't been able to get a clear answer to my question about Theranos: Was what she offered obviously impossible? That's my understanding. Blood is not homogeneous so it is physically impossible to get an accurate full blood panel from a single drop. Was there every any plan to address this or was it clearly a 100% fictitious product from the get-go? Did any journalist ever ask her or any scientist at Theranos about this problem? If not, then what were the scientists at Theranos doing all day? Were they all in on the scam? Or were there no scientists?

I just don't get how you can spend years pretending to build something so obviously impossible.

Comment by duxup 1 hour ago

My understanding from articles, they had scientists hard at work trying to get their machine to work and the issues that were essentially maintenance (you really couldn’t have a testing machine like this that didn’t require expensive / regular maintenance as promised). The amount of blood wasn’t really even addressed yet and they faked results in house using competitors machines.

In house teams were not optimistic, but they got paid to experiment and try so they did.

Comment by scyzoryk_xyz 6 hours ago

I believe I read something about this film featuring a moment where Nathan insists that since she's innocent that they must go to the back yard to confirm how this machine works. Or something along those lines - in any case the absurdity of "I totally believe you, let me help you prove them wrong".

What I'm reminded of is that documentary The Jinx which basically takes you along for the ride until the subject accidentally confesses. Documentary filmmaking is so weird - there is always the element of fiction and make believe that somehow manages to get at the truth

Comment by cyanydeez 5 hours ago

A mix of needing a paycheck, "fake it till you make it" and psychopathy.

Comment by NickNaraghi 9 hours ago

Trailer link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPhJLtzKk68

Comment by yesfitz 6 hours ago

That's a news report. Here's a link to the teaser trailer published by A24: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGJSRFWALTI

Comment by ternaryoperator 9 hours ago

This movie is getting lots of publicity without a single review saying anything about the actual contents.

Comment by 8 hours ago

Comment by throwawalien 8 hours ago

plenty of reviews with varying praise

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/you_can_see_everything/revi...

"A triumphant, riveting, and continually shape-shifting piece of creative non-fiction with curiosity and a playful sense of uncomfortable humor that will be no surprise to anyone familiar with Fielder’s work, it’s the kind of documentary that is persistently inquisitive and skeptical: both about its alarmingly wide-eyed subject who often refuses to blink, and the process of documentary filmmaking itself."

"You Can See Everything reaches for accuracy in its portrayal of a much talked-about figure. It ends up asking, with plenty of humor but no small amount of wisdom, what “accuracy” would even look like in the first place."

Comment by xenospn 9 hours ago

“Contents: Lizzy Holmes”. That’s all you need.

Comment by ChrisArchitect 7 hours ago

'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49596119

Comment by ktallett 10 hours ago

The trailer for the documentary is such a draw, due to the subject, and also how close they were able to get. She is a mythical character in many ways yet a tech Lance Armstrong.

Comment by yostrovs 10 hours ago

She's not mythical. She's a female psychopath and that characteristic is fascinating for many people.

Comment by tanseydavid 7 hours ago

Her incredibly low-rate of eye blinks is extremely off-putting/disturbing for me.

Anyone else get the same vibe?

Comment by 4 hours ago

Comment by add-sub-mul-div 9 hours ago

Only the female part is fascinating to them. Otherwise we'd see more high level dude psychopath scammers in prison.

Comment by dlcarrier 8 hours ago

Her lackey got more prison time than she did, even though he was following her orders.

Comment by reaperducer 8 hours ago

even though he was following her orders.

I guess you missed World War II, and the trials that followed. "Following orders" isn't an excuse for anything.

Comment by OkayPhysicist 7 hours ago

It's not an excuse, but we hanged the guys giving the orders, too.

Comment by dtagames 9 hours ago

But it's not the justice system; it's TV. And we have lots of psycho male scammers on TV.

Comment by ktallett 9 hours ago

SBF. Lance Armstrong. Both in a similar vein and both as fascinating.

Comment by 8 hours ago

Comment by black_13 5 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by OgsyedIE 10 hours ago

Rehabilitating her image in the same format as Martha Stewart promises to be highly profitable for pre-public investors who can reap the holdings of bagholders yet to come.

Comment by asdff 8 hours ago

Oh just watch the trailer

Comment by blinkbat 9 hours ago

that is not what will happen here.

Comment by quickthrowman 9 hours ago

I assure you that Nathan Fielder is not rehabilitating her image. If you’ve see his work, you’d understand.

He gets people with personality disorders or a lack of embarrassment to act insane in front of cameras, more or less. I don’t see why that would change, given the subject. She tried to get out of prison by having a baby.